Power vs Heart

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

A high cadence is aerobic, grinding the gears is anaerobic tiring the muscles out. I'm sure someone with a far greater physiological knowledge can explain that better.

Not really sure what you're saying here. It's equally possible to be aerobic/anaerobic at either a high or low cadence.

In my cackhanded way I was trying to say what was said above, that a high cadence is using he heart and lungs rather than tiring the leg muscles out with a low cadence.

You should read Alex's post again - that's not what was said.

reacher

That's the problem with heart rate it doesn't actually tell you anything about riding efficiently as regards power, that's what mislead me

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

A high cadence is aerobic, grinding the gears is anaerobic tiring the muscles out. I'm sure someone with a far greater physiological knowledge can explain that better.

Not really sure what you're saying here. It's equally possible to be aerobic/anaerobic at either a high or low cadence.

In my cackhanded way I was trying to say what was said above, that a high cadence is using he heart and lungs rather than tiring the leg muscles out with a low cadence.

You should read Alex's post again - that's not what was said.

Wasn't Alex's I was referring to.

Everyone is going to be different, but how many of us have powerful legs able to take repeated punishment over long distance? How many can work at a higher rate, given the heart and lungs recover more quickly than tired muscles and can take repeated punishment? There'll inevitably be differing camps for and against high cadence being more efficient than grinding big gears, just like every other subject in cycling.

http://coachlevi.com/cycling/high-vs-lo ... ing-speed/

poynedexter

training without a PM can be just as effective as with one, but its like going to a gym where no weights are identified in lbs or kg. the weights are there, and some do feel heavier than others, no ones quite sure if today's squats are the same as yesterday's.

the ideal is to combine power, HR, and feel to track your progress.

reacher

So before the power meters came along all those people like Merckx and the other great riders won by pure chance then, they just got lucky with the way they trained to reach those levels. With all the technology and science, better lighter bikes, better nutrition, computerised feedback to train to, in fact it's a whole new ball game compared to those riders, but seems to me they rode pretty good in those days..

slowmart

Those guys trained by feel, subjective at best. Yes it works and it's effective but power metres and heart rate reduce the guess work and makes your training more effective.

But it can take the joy out of your cycling as your'e constantly overlaying different metrics or having prescriptive rides. However after a couple of years of using aids you get to recognise the feel your after when you ride but that takes intelligent insight and application which not everyone is capable of

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

Everyone is going to be different, but how many of us have powerful legs able to take repeated punishment over long distance? How many can work at a higher rate, given the heart and lungs recover more quickly than tired muscles and can take repeated punishment? There'll inevitably be differing camps for and against high cadence being more efficient than grinding big gears, just like every other subject in cycling.

Still not sure if you've understood the point being made. What you are describing above is aerobic fitness of varying intensities. Neither of those things is limited or influenced by your cadence.

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Everyone is going to be different, but how many of us have powerful legs able to take repeated punishment over long distance? How many can work at a higher rate, given the heart and lungs recover more quickly than tired muscles and can take repeated punishment? There'll inevitably be differing camps for and against high cadence being more efficient than grinding big gears, just like every other subject in cycling.

Still not sure if you've understood the point being made. What you are describing above is aerobic fitness of varying intensities. Neither of those things is limited or influenced by your cadence.

Extract from TP.

"Fluidity
You can always tell an experienced rider by their pedaling style. I can spot one at a good distance. There is a nice fluid motion, no slamming the pedals down or pulling up so hard that it makes the bike weave. Their cadence is at a good 90+ rpm and pedaling in a full circle not wasting a bit of energy. The knees are tucked in and there is a slight drop in the ankle on the downstroke and pulling up the ankle during the upstroke. Having a fluid spin allows you to conserve energy on the flats and on long climbs. Pushing the pedals with excessive force burns muscle (anaerobic work) while keeping a smooth circle allows your body to work more efficiently and save energy (aerobic work)."

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/six- ... al-stroke/

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Everyone is going to be different, but how many of us have powerful legs able to take repeated punishment over long distance? How many can work at a higher rate, given the heart and lungs recover more quickly than tired muscles and can take repeated punishment? There'll inevitably be differing camps for and against high cadence being more efficient than grinding big gears, just like every other subject in cycling.

Still not sure if you've understood the point being made. What you are describing above is aerobic fitness of varying intensities. Neither of those things is limited or influenced by your cadence.

Extract from TP.

"Fluidity
You can always tell an experienced rider by their pedaling style. I can spot one at a good distance. There is a nice fluid motion, no slamming the pedals down or pulling up so hard that it makes the bike weave. Their cadence is at a good 90+ rpm and pedaling in a full circle not wasting a bit of energy. The knees are tucked in and there is a slight drop in the ankle on the downstroke and pulling up the ankle during the upstroke. Having a fluid spin allows you to conserve energy on the flats and on long climbs. Pushing the pedals with excessive force burns muscle (anaerobic work) while keeping a smooth circle allows your body to work more efficiently and save energy (aerobic work)."

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/six- ... al-stroke/

Again, I don't think you are reading that right. All they are doing there is stating the obvious. None of that contradicts the point that cadence is not the limiting or influencing factor in any of this.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Unless you get access to a power meter from a mate or your cycling club to try for a while, they come across as very expensive leaps of faith to me. They might be far more useful for further pushing my boundaries, but even spending ~£250 for a PowerPod is a massive outlay for me.

bobmcstuff

Interesting aside I find my HR is noticeably lower for the same power at 80-85rpm than at 90-95rpm on turbo workouts. But on the road when I'm pushing on I always find myself doing 95.

NitrousOxide wrote:

Unless you get access to a power meter from a mate or your cycling club to try for a while, they come across as very expensive leaps of faith to me. They might be far more useful for further pushing my boundaries, but even spending ~£250 for a PowerPod is a massive outlay for me.

You could try virtual power on trainerroad or sufferers etc for a bit. It really turned me onto the idea of getting a PM - especially for turbo workouts, it makes them a lot more efficient as you have some objective measure of what you're doing.

liamcahill1

I really don't 'need' a PM, but I find them good fun. Working full time, I can get a really good quality session in after work and I like to track the correlation between my weight and power. If I want to just ride hard up a hill, I simply put my Garmin in my pocket.

I am a little peeved that my body will happily do 304w ftp (4.9w/kg) uphill, but fails to cooperate on the flats, allowing me a max of about 270w. I've read it's about how the body reacts to different levels of kinetic energy. Anyone got any tips on how to convince it that it likes the flats too?

Alex_Simmons/RST

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Everyone is going to be different, but how many of us have powerful legs able to take repeated punishment over long distance? How many can work at a higher rate, given the heart and lungs recover more quickly than tired muscles and can take repeated punishment? There'll inevitably be differing camps for and against high cadence being more efficient than grinding big gears, just like every other subject in cycling.

Still not sure if you've understood the point being made. What you are describing above is aerobic fitness of varying intensities. Neither of those things is limited or influenced by your cadence.

Extract from TP.

"Fluidity
You can always tell an experienced rider by their pedaling style. I can spot one at a good distance. There is a nice fluid motion, no slamming the pedals down or pulling up so hard that it makes the bike weave. Their cadence is at a good 90+ rpm and pedaling in a full circle not wasting a bit of energy. The knees are tucked in and there is a slight drop in the ankle on the downstroke and pulling up the ankle during the upstroke. Having a fluid spin allows you to conserve energy on the flats and on long climbs. Pushing the pedals with excessive force burns muscle (anaerobic work) while keeping a smooth circle allows your body to work more efficiently and save energy (aerobic work)."

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/six- ... al-stroke/

Gawd - what a load of nonsense in that article. it's no wonder people get confused and misunderstand these topics.

StillGoing

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Everyone is going to be different, but how many of us have powerful legs able to take repeated punishment over long distance? How many can work at a higher rate, given the heart and lungs recover more quickly than tired muscles and can take repeated punishment? There'll inevitably be differing camps for and against high cadence being more efficient than grinding big gears, just like every other subject in cycling.

Still not sure if you've understood the point being made. What you are describing above is aerobic fitness of varying intensities. Neither of those things is limited or influenced by your cadence.

Extract from TP.

"Fluidity
You can always tell an experienced rider by their pedaling style. I can spot one at a good distance. There is a nice fluid motion, no slamming the pedals down or pulling up so hard that it makes the bike weave. Their cadence is at a good 90+ rpm and pedaling in a full circle not wasting a bit of energy. The knees are tucked in and there is a slight drop in the ankle on the downstroke and pulling up the ankle during the upstroke. Having a fluid spin allows you to conserve energy on the flats and on long climbs. Pushing the pedals with excessive force burns muscle (anaerobic work) while keeping a smooth circle allows your body to work more efficiently and save energy (aerobic work)."

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/six- ... al-stroke/

Gawd - what a load of nonsense in that article. it's no wonder people get confused and misunderstand these topics.

Well I bow to your obvious knowledge and I'm not being facetious, but question how TrainingPeaks, which is supposed to be a recognised analytical program with input from qualified trainers, have a differing view, or at best, way of putting it? Even a few pro riders have come out with the view that a high cadence is less taxing on the muscle groups, working the heart and lungs harder. Excuse my being thick with this.

Alex_Simmons/RST

Like most websites and magazines, the TP articles are designed to fill up space, because it's better marketing strategy to have constant content for filling up Facebook and Twitter feeds than to have nothing. Click bait. Whether it has any scientific rigour is something that unfortunately not many have the skills to assess.

There will be some articles that are worth paying attention to but others are just pervading myths. It's the same in all such cycling media.

Let's take one sentence from the item:

Pushing the pedals with excessive force burns muscle (anaerobic work) while keeping a smooth circle allows your body to work more efficiently and save energy (aerobic work).

It's just a load of meaningless physiological nonsense.

Worse, the claim about "smooth circles and efficiency" is not even supported by the evidence published in the scientific literature.

What determines the metabolic energy systems you tap into to fuel the energy demand is a function of the power output and duration of that effort. The gear/cadence really isn't part of the equation. Indeed for same power output lower cadences are generally more efficient yet despite that experienced riders choose to ride gears that result in higher cadences.

It will take time to teach yourself to not only push down, but to transition from push to pull at the bottom of the stroke, then to pull up on the up-stroke and to transition the motion again over the top of the pedal stroke.

That's a load of biomechanical nonsense.

Again when such attempts to change the way one pedals are actually studied they:
i. make efficiency worse
ii. are never retained such that people revert to their "natural" style pretty quickly

Best thing you can do for pedalling well is to have a quality bike fit and do lots of riding with good smattering of high intensity efforts. Racing is especially good for helping in this regard as being in survival mode helps you quickly sort out appropriate gearing choices for various situations.

Strength Building
Being able to lay down the big power at 50 to 60 rpm is a nice tool to have at your disposal. Having the ability to turn over a huge gear can pay off when it is needed. This is sometimes needed to muscle over a short steep climb or to get on top of your gear when accelerating. There are two different types of drills that you can do to build this low cadence strength and attain a more efficient pedal stroke.

Strength has nothing to do with it. The forces involved are an order of magnitude less than those involved with strength. It's just misinformation.

And so on.

Like many such articles it's well meaning, and I'm sure people believe and buy into this stuff, but often it's just nonsense.

jgsi

I think you can cherry pick some dubiously written TP blog articles and rip them apart but that is not why I highlighted this particular article and infograph.
Sometimes I dont know where this leaves the ordinary cyclist. As soon as you introduce a complicated measuring device that has become very affordable ( Boardman bikes can now be fitted with FSA crank powermeters for basically very little money) people are tempted to use a PM like a heart rate monitor because things are so flippin complicated.

My get out clause is that, without a PM at my disposal, I can't Zwift.

However, added to that, I do feel that simply training over winter especially and 'hitting the numbers' has helped me maintain some semblance of competitiveness in the summer be that a consequence of the 'dumbing down ' of technology.

reacher

All your doing is useing the numbers or hitting the numbers as you put it, as motivation, those numbers are not doing anything that you couldn't do without them. That's not to say its a very usefull tool to have, it is, but this idea that you can't train hard or just as hard without them is a bit of a stretch. Most training is just simply the ability to train hard nothing else if numbers help you do that all well and good but theirs plenty of people that can do exactly the same without them.

StillGoing

reacher wrote:

All your doing is useing the numbers or hitting the numbers as you put it, as motivation, those numbers are not doing anything that you couldn't do without them. That's not to say its a very usefull tool to have, it is, but this idea that you can't train hard or just as hard without them is a bit of a stretch. Most training is just simply the ability to train hard nothing else if numbers help you do that all well and good but theirs plenty of people that can do exactly the same without them.

Training with a power meter is the ability to train accurately and measure your performance. RPE is just guess work. It doesn't mean those with a power meter just stare at the numbers all ride long or every ride.

reacher

I completely agree, all I'm saying is believe it or not some people can do this without one while at the same time it's worth looking at what else enables people to train at very high/hard levels for years on end and it's not looking at numbers or training plans, these are motivational tools that at the same time structure training.

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

Training with a power meter is the ability to train accurately and measure your performance. RPE is just guess work. It doesn't mean those with a power meter just stare at the numbers all ride long or every ride.

In a competitive situation though, RPE is all you have - even if you do have a PM. If your body is telling you that it is on the absolute limit, but your PM is telling you that you can still make another 50w, your body will win the argument every time.

jgsi

reacher wrote:

All your doing is useing the numbers or hitting the numbers as you put it, as motivation, those numbers are not doing anything that you couldn't do without them. That's not to say its a very usefull tool to have, it is, but this idea that you can't train hard or just as hard without them is a bit of a stretch. Most training is just simply the ability to train hard nothing else if numbers help you do that all well and good but theirs plenty of people that can do exactly the same without them.

It helps you adhere to the 2nd letter in SMART acronym.
Measurable.
That is all.

There is no problem with resorting to "old school".

harry-s

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Training with a power meter is the ability to train accurately and measure your performance. RPE is just guess work. It doesn't mean those with a power meter just stare at the numbers all ride long or every ride.

In a competitive situation though, RPE is all you have - even if you do have a PM. If your body is telling you that it is on the absolute limit, but your PM is telling you that you can still make another 50w, your body will win the argument every time.

Excellently put. Nail, head etc.

StillGoing

Imposter wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Training with a power meter is the ability to train accurately and measure your performance. RPE is just guess work. It doesn't mean those with a power meter just stare at the numbers all ride long or every ride.

In a competitive situation though, RPE is all you have - even if you do have a PM. If your body is telling you that it is on the absolute limit, but your PM is telling you that you can still make another 50w, your body will win the argument every time.

I'm not disagreeing as I found out in a recent FTP test!

Alex_Simmons/RST

Most of the value of power meters is in the post hoc analysis of all ride data. especially data sets covering sizeable chunks of your season.

Managing intensity of effort during a ride is a low-fi application of the tool, and as many have pointed out, often unnecessary or not possible (you race the race). There are some circumstances where it can be helpful, e.g. opening minutes of an ITT, because despite best efforts almost everyone goes too hard to begin with and that costs time overall, or when wanting to nail some specific intervals efforts, or knowing when to bail on a workout because you're unable to meet a target power range (while RPE just tells you it's hard as you would expect).